The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of The Rings:
Can someone explain to me this need for every character to be lordly and proper all the time?



starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 8 2012, 7:09am


Views: 2727
Can someone explain to me this need for every character to be lordly and proper all the time?
Ever since the LOTR films were in theatres, I've seen this trend of fans complaining about changes to character, which essentially are attempts at giving the characters more of a "journey" or making them more flawed so that they have somewhere to develop over the course of the films. Faramir is the obvious example, of course. This trend has continued with responses to what we've seen of the Hobbit. However, anytime there's a change, I see responses like this:

"Legolas wouldn't jump on a horse like that and show off - he's a valiant elf!"
"Gimli would never joke like that - he's a brave dwarf!"
"But Denethor was much more of a respectable leader in the books!"
"Faramir would never give into the temptation of the Ring like that!"
"Sam would never leave Frodo's side! He'd stick with him the whole way!"
"Aragorn would never lose his temper like that!"
"Frodo wasn't that whiny in the book!"
"Theoden shouldn't be so reluctant and doubtful!"

Now, let me be clear here...I'm not saying that Gimli should be burping and farting all the time, but these ideas crop up that reduce the cinematic portrayals of these characters to JUST the changes. Gimli is used as comic relief for sure, but there are plenty of varied emotions associated with his character. In Moria we see his despair, at the Council of Elrond we see his anger, at the Black Gates we see his compassion growing for Legolas, and so on.... Why then is it such an issue that he's used for comedy moments? And why is such a sin for Faramir to be temped by the Ring, when he ends up ultimately rejecting it anyway? There seems to be a pattern of fans wanting Tolkien characters to embody these perfect archetypal identities who represent some noble aspect 100% of the time. If this were an allegory I'd say that's a perfectly valid thing to want, but considering Middle-Earth is supposed to feel like a real place in terms of culture and landscape, it doesn't make sense to me to have these perfectly morally-optimistic people within it. Stories are entirely about change and conflict, so surely it's more entertaining and satisfying to watch characters struggle through bad decisions and mistakes and then work them out? Furthermore, real people laugh and joke - they don't merely sit around and speak about serious wartime decisions. I just don't see how any of these characters without some sort of development are in any way interesting.


MatthewJer18
Rohan

Nov 8 2012, 7:14am


Views: 1568
This might be moved over to the board for the trilogy, as it seems to be more relevant to those films
 


Elutherian
Rohan


Nov 8 2012, 7:50am


Views: 1582
Completely Agree on this!
Most of Gimli's humor is part of his character. There were a couple bad choices.

And Legolas being awesome shouldn't make fans angry. Never understood this.... apparently sliding down something can ONLY be associated with skateboarding.
The Grey Pilgrim, they once called me. Three hundred lives of men I walked this earth, and now I have no time...


DanielLB
Immortal


Nov 8 2012, 8:11am


Views: 1615
Film Gimli is nothing like his book self
I can live with a bit of humour. But they should have got the rest of his character right.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 8 2012, 8:27am


Views: 1570
If you prefer
a good dwarf tossing at Helms Deep instead of Gimli's war cry Barak Khazad, Khazad ai menu then thats your right.

As is Aragorn chopping the head off an emissary during parley in a cowardly sneak attack instead of making him quail by sheer force of will.

Your question sort of answers itself. The characters you note are noble. Legolas a prince, the men all having the blood of Numenor running true or near true within them.

Bill Ferny is a dirt bag and he doesn't act noble.

I can see how some people are happy with the changes, I'm just not one of them.

The story line retained much of the book, hardly any characters tesembled what they were in the books, it was a poor adaptation in this respect


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 8 2012, 8:32am)


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 8 2012, 8:58am


Views: 1607
Aragorn is the perfect example of a character who had no need
of a journey of self discovery/enlightenment/improvemnet/change during the course of the story, and his was probably the greatest in the movies. He is 87 years old, in the book he has been preparing for his ascension as the High King of Gondor & Arnor nearly all of his life. This was only going to happen by addressing the growing threat of Sauron, the means were never clear but it was his doom to do so. So why should he significantly change in the months that the main body of the story represents? In the book he makes mistakes by his own estimation, although others may not call them such.

What is better, his meek greeting to Eomer in the movies, or his noble declaration and bold statement of intent in the book. The former just makes me think that the upcoming shot where Guthwine falls out of Eomers scabbard is more entertaining, and the latter sends goosebumps down my spine every time.

Growth and the place of the everyman (and woman) in these great events is meant to be represented according to Tolkien by the hobbits, in particular Frodo, and it is a painful irony that in the movies it is his character that changes the least, if at all.

People are bound to trot out the line that characters like Aragorn are more interseting if they expereince growth, personal conflict etc etc, I find this to be so far from the truth, and I find it to be a formulaic movie making cliche. This does not mean that I cannot see how others do not enjoy it or think any less or their right to enjoy it.


macfalk
Valinor


Nov 8 2012, 9:00am


Views: 1524
Then again...
The Mouth of Sauron was hardly a respectable "emissary", and should not be treated as such.
Aragorn made some strange choices in the book as well, like banishing Beregond from Minas Tirith for life for saving Pippin. I wonder if he would have done the same if any of his closer friends saved Pippin/defied Denethor?


The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 8 2012, 9:19am


Views: 1552
Aragorn is a better man than the Mouth
The book is an intentional example of the conflict between two men likely of similar heritage, one good, one bad, and the power one attains over the other by sheer force of will, with no physicality required.

Your comments about Beregond entirely overlook the context of the situation. You know he sent him to Ithilien with Faramir who's life he saved full knowing he could be forfeiting his own to do so.

As king there was no one more duty bound to uphold the laws of the land, he did so with wisdom, grace and mercy and Beregond recognised this in the decision of Elessar Telcontar.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 8 2012, 9:20am)


Macfeast
Rohan


Nov 8 2012, 1:21pm


Views: 1442
Good point about Beregond.
He did, after all, kill two of his own people, and it wouldn't do for Aragorn to just overlook that. Aragorn's decision to banish Beregond was both a punishment for his crimes, a recognisition of the loss of the two slain, and a mercy granted for saving Faramir, as his punishment would have been much more severe otherwise.


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Nov 8 2012, 1:22pm)


imin
Valinor


Nov 8 2012, 2:34pm


Views: 1432
Gimli isnt too bad in FOTR
In the TTT and ROTK he is used almost entirely for lowest common denominator humour. For me it reduces the character to something less than what i found in the book.

If they wanted to give him more or a journey through the movie that could be done in others ways than burping and farting and generally acting like a cretin. I felt they just couldnt be bothered with his character or felt the movie needed more comic relief when they werent with merry or pippin so it came to gimli to provide that.

For people who found it funny then thats great as its something to like about the movie. For those who didnt like him in the movie then its something thats annoying.

Its not they have to act lordly - i dont have to burp and fart to show i am not coming across as lordly and 'proper' as its not just either or, there is a whole spectrum. Oh well, its happened now and hopefully they wont make the same mistakes in the hobbit.


DanielLB
Immortal


Nov 8 2012, 3:22pm


Views: 1368
Well put imin
Couldn't have said it better myself. Gimli is a vital member of the Fellowship. You wouldn't think that from the films.

I'm not holding out for TH though. The clip of Nori burping one after another worries me.Unsure

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


Elenorflower
Gondor


Nov 8 2012, 5:28pm


Views: 1343
as regards Gimli
who is probably my favourite character in the book, I suppose in the film makers defence they did have to show, in a very small amount of time, the character differences between the races. So we got ethereal distant Elves, doubtful men, and one salty earthy Dwarf. Its not very subtle, but for the general non Tolkien savvy movie goer, it was probably there spelled out for them.


GoodGuyA
Lorien

Nov 8 2012, 6:03pm


Views: 1339
This is something that gets at me too
It has nothing to do with being "proper" though. It's that "All good guys must be nice to each other, because if they are slightly antagonistic then they are evil". Some people hated the idea that Boromir had redemptive qualities because he was just supposed to be a bad nut. Others disliked Gollum being shown as anything but a sneak. Elrond's antagonism rather than his cheeriness brought to the forefront is actually not a huge character change, but it still angered some. Of course there's also Faramir's changes, which I can understand frustration with on some levels, but some dismiss the completely valid motivation as well. And Frodo as well, which really ties into Gollum more than it does Frodo, which is a really interesting exploration of the character but people hate it because he's mean to Sam. Why is it that they must agree on everything?

Characters who oppose the Fellowship are also corrupted in some form. Theoden is held by Grima's sway, but then is revived and never questions the heroes again. Denethor is a bad one because he is held by the palantir, not because he just, y'know, has different opinions on how to run his city. The Army of the Dead are betrayers who must be forced by a promise to help. The rest of the characters are just monstrous because it's in their nature, which I'm okay with, but if we have no "grey" in the good side then it actually is the most black and white story you can imagine. A few remarks from Gandalf to Pippin does not make it a multi-layered story. Conflicting ideas and opinions creates real drama, as well as really playing properly on the character dynamics at hand rather than them just saying "Yep" or nothing at all.

The story would be so straightforward (if massive) were there no fights about anything which wasn't just petty business (the dwarf/elf conflict is so insubstantial and never affects what Gimli or Legolas does or says). Going to Helm's Deep is a decision. Assembling the armies of men is a decision. Are we not allowed to see some internal strife, rather than being passed along from one location to the next? I personally think Jackson & Co. picked up on some key opportunities to expand the story and did so in ways which are exciting and fulfilling the potential which existed. Perhaps if he ignored these dynamics, he would have gotten the whole tale into the films, but it would have lacked character.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 8 2012, 7:56pm


Views: 1352
It's not a formulaic cliche - it's what storytelling/character is entirely about
One of the main reasons of narrative storytelling is to present a significant point in the life of a person or a society, and that almost ALWAYS represents an important change. Why? Because it offers the opportunity for a wider range of emotions, for conflict, and for the opportunity to take the audience on a journey that ultimately succeeds or fails. There's no rule that a character needs to overcome all his or her flaws by the end of the story, but he or she most certainly needs to experience a change of some kind in order to be compelling. Whether it's Gollum in LOTR or Snape in the Harry Potter universe, the morally conflicted characters always captivate audiences the most.

Nobody wants to watch a film about the Titanic that ends the day before the ship hits the iceberg. The entire reason the Quest of Erebor is compelling is that the Dwarves have something to reclaim - they're in a fallen state and want to retrieve a lost glory. It shouldn't always be a case of reversals (someone bad becomes good, something lost becomes found, etc.), but there's no reason for this fan-based concept that says inserting roadblocks for characters on their way to becoming "noble" is ruining the essence of who those characters are. It's just another classic case of hating change because it's not what we're used to. The whole notion of the infallible hero is what gave birth to the terms "Mary Sue" and "Gary Stu" in the literary world (characters who always do the right thing to the audience's point of annoyance). In real life they would be admirable and morally respectable, but in the world of storytelling they're just not interesting to read/watch.

I don't think it helps in any way to think of a fictional story as an authentic shard of reality. There needs to be an intellectual gap in the way we view storytelling and the way we see the real world because storytelling is a reflection upon the experience of reality - not a direct representation of it. Very few people ponder the meaning of death when a loved one actually dies, for example, but a story about death offers that opportunity through a variety of techniques. In some cases stories may give the illusion of reality, but ultimately there's a reason we're not watching Aragorn go to the bathroom behind a tree. We want to see the most interesting parts of his life, not where he's merely dragged along by other people's actions. It might not be entirely like life, but this ISN'T real life - and it's not supposed to be.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 8 2012, 8:09pm


Views: 1294
Amen
 
Quote
I personally think Jackson & Co. picked up on some key opportunities to expand the story and did so in ways which are exciting and fulfilling the potential which existed. Perhaps if he ignored these dynamics, he would have gotten the whole tale into the films, but it would have lacked character.
Exactly. That's actually what I think purists forget when they watch the films. Is it not better to base an adaptation around key emotional beats and important decisions/conflicts with real heart and depth than it is to have everything included? Too often book-to-film adaptations become a case in which fans go the theatre with a personal checklist of "Things From the Book." A film is supposed to be an experience of emotion, not an I-Spy game.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Nov 8 2012, 9:54pm


Views: 1258
why not create something original then?
Quote
Exactly. That's actually what I think purists forget when they watch the films. Is it not better to base an adaptation around key emotional beats and important decisions/conflicts with real heart and depth than it is to have everything included? Too often book-to-film adaptations become a case in which fans go the theatre with a personal checklist of "Things From the Book." A film is supposed to be an experience of emotion, not an I-Spy game.
If this is the case Why take a book dissect it and change characters and events of something that is loved by many people. IMO anyways having a bit of reverence for the source material and just making minor tweaks to it would be a better adaptation instead of outright changes. If the story they are adapting isn't the story they want to tell maybe they should think about writing an original script instead of taking someones life's work, hacking it up, to create a tale that while similar does not have the same feel and tone of the source material. When I see a film based on a book i expect to see the elements of that book on the screen not as an I-spy but as the way the story unfolds in the book that I love. The situations that I cared about when reading the tale. Not some made up nonsense that while might be entertaining to the general movie going audience its not what was in the source material and is just fan fiction forced into a story where it really has no place. Whats the use in changing things just for the sake of changing them if you aren't getting the tone, feel, and character correct in what you are supposedly adapting? If you feel the need to change what was written because it wasn't good enough to work on film, write something original have a bit of respect for the author who wrote the book, and leave it alone. Instead of worrying about lining your pocket on something based on a great literary work of art. I wouldn't say I am a purist but someone who thinks minor tweaking is good or small variations are ok but total changes from character and tone should never be done when you are calling something an adaptation, Based on is a whole different issue but they weren't claiming LOTR was "based on" JRR Tolkien's book they were portraying it as a faithful adaptation. Which was close but it could have been closer and still been entertaining and successful


LOTR was a great set of films flawed in many places. When Peter Jackson stuck to what Tolkien wrote they were fantastic films but when he made up his own content for the sake of being entertaining or humorous they fell way short IMO of the rest of the films. Had he stuck to the books with minor tweaking I think they would have been much better adaptations and been just as successful.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Nov 8 2012, 10:01pm)


GoodGuyA
Lorien

Nov 8 2012, 11:13pm


Views: 1312
What people tend to forget about LotR
Is that the emotional beats are very subdued, and are definitely not anywhere near as often as they should be. There's a really heavy emotional turmoil at the end where Frodo sails off, in Aragorn's nearly unseen romance with Arwen, and in Gandalf's mere presence that are demonstrated acutely but these are certainly not the only points characters would have experienced a high conflict. Frodo and Sam's journey to Mordor is more about worrying about food than about each other (or even about Gollum), and only a few times do they ever talk about their homesickness. The straightforward tale of their journey would never interest audiences, because for so long it's a straight shoot without danger (in between Dead Marshes and Shelob).

Take Gandalf's death for example. Absolute literal interpretation, they move on in about five seconds, then Gimli takes them to see a lake. That is such a ridiculous notion of "pride" and "honor" that it completely kills the importance of the moment. Beyond the physical perils in their way, the heroes rarely stop and reflect on themselves throughout the journey. I don't think Aragorn ever does, whereas Gimli at least thinks about his home once or twice. There is such a hard line drawn in the term "friendship" as if it can never evolve or prosper, but is merely existent because Tolkien just wanted the Fellowship to act together. When you get such varying people together who have just barely met before though, you're bound to have difficulties. I like how Frodo still does not fully trust Strider after Rivendell because "honor" and "blood" should not mean that much to him in comparison to the ranger's shady ways. When he finally defends Frodo's decision at Amon Hen though, you see that their relationship has grown.

There are gaps to be filled in these stories which present necessary opportunities for the audience to live more with the character than taking them for the sum of their parts (good/evil, dwarf/man, gruff/good-mannered) and you can only bring that out if you see how they relate with others, even if it's not the way just presented in the original text. Who's to say Gollum would never have pulled a trick to separate Frodo and Sam if he saw Sam as a threat? Why is it that Faramir can just whisk away the ring like Tom flipping Bombadil? How can Theoden trust a new adviser in Gandalf after being so scourged by Wormtongue? These are questions the film-makers asked and decided to explore in their own fashion. I don't think that discovering new things about the book and it's themes is "unfaithful" and we should certainly be more open to the idea of seeing Tolkien in a light other than when he wrote it.


Escapist
Gondor


Nov 8 2012, 11:29pm


Views: 1256
will and self-mastery and maybe ...
a bit of that supposed "English trait of dissolving self into duty" that I have heard something about ...

There are some that would call some aspects of the "individualized and permissively expressive Americanish tendencies" as "simply childish" ... or at least I have heard something like this.

All of this is coming from a person who is trying to understand the works of an author who comes from a culture that is removed by both space and time from my own ... but I am aware that my attempts to "see past my own blinders and filters" are likely to yield something a little bit distorted somehow ... but I'm trying to see it, anway!

But at any rate, not all deaths are met with immediate emotional reactions - especially not amongst people who are highly trained / conditioned / experienced / in immediate danger themselves. Sometimes there is the ability to control emotion and sublimate it in art forms or hold it in until a moment when it is more safe to deal with it (they had to press on after Gandalf's death to avoid being killed, themselves).

I don't buy into this heavy drama thing - especially not as a mandate or even as a norm, really. It might work on film, though ... or in other dramatic artforms.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 8 2012, 11:56pm


Views: 1415
Of course it is formulaic cliche
why should every character in every story ever told have to go through a "journey" in the course of the story. If this is the case then it becomes exactly what I say-a formula for how characters are meant to be represented.

Please address the examples of Aragorn and Frodo that I give if you could, one changed little in the course of the book and one changed a great deal, yet in the movie this was flipped around and the everyman (Frodo) who we are supposed to relate to the most changed little if at all.

Not all who object to some of the changes in the movie are purists, I certainly am not, it is just a blanket statement made by some who want to pigeonhole others who do not sing PJ's praises for all he does. Nor do I for one object in any way shape or form to others enjoying the changes, some of which I consider necessary or without detriment to the film story. Personally there are very few changes I would say I actually object to too such a degree that I hate them.

If PJ had to change so many of the characters to such a great extent why didn't he come up with his own entirely new story and see how well that did.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 9 2012, 12:04am)


dreamflower
Lorien

Nov 9 2012, 4:49pm


Views: 1180
All or nothing at all
Some people seem to think that you have to hate the movies in order to love the books.

I can pick nits with the best of the purists, and I can find fault with the characterizations like the rest--here are a few you missed:

"Merry and Pippin were not just clueless accidents! PJ gutted the Conspiracy and all their backstory!"
"Arwen would never even have started for the Havens."
"Elrond was kind as summer, not a grumpy old man! And he was fond of Aragorn!"

And yet. There are a lot of movie moments that do bother me lifted straight from the screen--but I do understand the need to simplify things onscreen for those who never read the books. For those of us who DID we can use our knowledge to fill in the parts PJ missed, or to interpret them in a slightly different way that brings the characters closer to our own interpretations. For example, I HATE the whole Gollum/Sam/Lembas scene, finding it rather lame. And yet, while I agree that book-Frodo would never send Sam away at all, I don't see movie-Frodo as sending Sam off because he believed Gollum, but rather because he feared for Sam and for how he would react to Sam as the Ring increased its influence on him. I dislike immensely the way the hobbits cross the Brandywine in one scene and end up in Bree in the next--but I can imagine what happens in between. Also, I have to differ with those who see movie-Frodo as "weak"; certainly he was more conflicted than book-Frodo, and the Ring began its hold on him more quickly, but he kept going. There was nothing weak about him when he began that last crawl up Mount Doom.

And I can interpret Aragorn's supposed doubts in the movies not as doubt of his right to be King, but as the very proper and virtuous humility of someone who knows his duty but is not seeking after power. Likewise I can interpret some of Gimli's and Pippin's sillier moments as deliberate attempts to lighten the mood and cheer the Company. (For example: in the movies, Merry and Pippin must have known exactly where they were going after the Council--they'd been eavesdropping just like Sam; Pippin's question must have been a deliberate choice to make a joke. And in the EE, when Gimli falls off the horse in the "stew scene" I think he was telling the absolute truth when he said "that was deliberate". He made Eowyn smile. )

Most of the really poor characterization changes were due to PJ's insistence on magnifying the Ring's power beyond what it was even in the books. So within the movie-verse they make a certain amount of sense.

I have a harder time with things that did not even make sense in the context of the movie: Gandalf telling Frodo and Sam he'd meet them in Bree when he's heading off to Isengard is one; failing to account for Elrond's actions after showing up in Dunharrow is another.

Yet these things do not take away from the great achievement of PJ's version of LotR. There are flaws in every movie ever made, and even more in most movies made from books. He did a brilliant job overall, and I expect that with the things he learned from the making of it, his version of TH will be even better.

But just like the LotR movies, it will still be fanfic.

Nothing wrong with that, so long as you can remember the difference between fanon and canon.


GothmogTheBalrog
Rivendell


Nov 9 2012, 4:56pm


Views: 1142
I don't think
that falling off the horse was deliberate. I do however think Gimli decided to joke about it.
"It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it." ~FotR


acheron
Gondor


Nov 9 2012, 5:02pm


Views: 1226
"I meant to do that."
 
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams

(This post was edited by acheron on Nov 9 2012, 5:03pm)
Attachments: meanttodothat_6855.jpg (39.9 KB)


Bombadil
Half-elven


Nov 9 2012, 10:02pm


Views: 1126
Calvin & Hobbes?
My favorite Cartoon of all Time!
Thang you very Buch!
Bomby


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Nov 9 2012, 10:03pm


Views: 1185
Fanon I like that... LOL
thanks for the new term Smile


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 1:06am


Views: 1155
Not every character has to, but it's important that the main characters do
Otherwise, WHY are they the main characters? An author has a reason they choose a certain character's perspective.

Almost every docudrama movie out there is the story of someone who had to overcome a difficulty to achieve something. The Helen Keller story, every sports team movie ever made, every civil rights drama... Those stories resonate with us and are made into films because they're about change. Things have to develop or else we're watching a lot of passivity - people moving around and doing things but none of it means anything. If a character isn't developing, their actions are just empty plot - very mechanical.

When it comes to Frodo, I disagree that he didn't change in the films. I thought that was the whole point of the scenes in the Shire at the end of ROTK. At the beginning of the trilogy he's a happy, carefree individual who craves adventure, but instead of being fulfilled by that desire he becomes a saddened, broken figure who can never again live comfortably in the environment he once loved. Those words are never spoken, but they're implied visually.

By the way, I should add about Faramir's changes that they were as much (if not more) about the portrayal of the Ring than they were about the character himself.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 1:12am


Views: 603
RE: Gandalf and Bree
Isn't it possible that he intended to go to Bree after Isengard? He does tell them after all that he is going to meet Saruman. Couldn't he have turned around after that and met them there?


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 1:25am


Views: 585
Because you can love something and not think EVERYTHING is well done
LOTR is a very long story filled with endless detail. It's very possible to be a huge fan of a story and not agree with every decision the author made regarding all that detail. In fact I don't understand people who do! Given the chance to fix those things, I know I certainly would! Doing so wouldn't change what Tolkien wrote - the book's still there - it's just a different version of it. Plus, most of these characters end up in the same place anyway. In the films they just have a different way of getting there.


dreamflower
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 2:22am


Views: 572
Re: Gandalf and Bree
Well, I am assuming that he planned to go to Bree after Isengard. But Isengard is hundreds of leagues in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION! Bree is only a couple of days travel beyond the Shire in the book, and it's even closer in movie-verse.

There is no way he could have arrived in Bree in time to meet the hobbits there. Yet that is clearly what he's implied to them, and it's clearly what they expected, since they ask the innkeeper about him.

So: either he lied to them (which I can't think even movie-verse Gandalf would do) or he was really rotten at geography or he had some super-sekrit instantaneous mode of transport he expected to use (Eagle express, perhaps?). Or PJ simply was not thinking straight when they penned that scene.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 10 2012, 3:36am


Views: 613
In the book Aragorn is a main character
and he changes very little, if at all. However our perception of him as readers changes during the course of the story by means of what we see of him through others eyes and their words to him. He goes from being a character of suspicion to a trusted ranger to a noble king...in our perception, without significantly changing as a person during that time. Tolkien is masterful at giving us glimpses and clues about Aragorn. Examples are 1) at Rivendell standing with Elrond and Arwen 2) when he is waiting to leave Rivendell with the Felllowship and he is sitting with his head between his knees and it is noted that "only Elrond fully understood what this hour meant to him" 3) on Cerin Amroth deep in thought 4) Galadriels words to him at their parting from Lorien. There are of course many more examples but I am not interested in writing an essay on this. We find out so much about him from these moments and he is not changing, and I personally find this less predictable, more enjoyable and better story telling than the "personal growth story formula". So Aragorn is noble at the beginning of the story and retains that nobility without compromise throughout the story to it's conclusion, it is just that this situation is revealed to us in generally subtle degrees. The most powerful exhibition of his nobility of character in my opinion is his declaration to Eomer when they meet, you can imagine my dissapointment at what resulted in the movie.

Faramirs change in the movie weakened the One Rings potency, he knew what it was, after his men cruelly tortured Gollum, craved it and rejected it thereby reducing it's potency. In the book he was uninformed on the matter for the main duration of Frodo and Sams capture, never sighted it, was not in a real position to be tempted by it and therefore was never really trialled as he was in the movie. If he had been trialled and subsequently tempted then he would have fallen as others had, therfore the One Ring in the book remains more potent. Sir PJ created a situation in the movie to put temptation in Faramirs way by means of an obvious and dire need (Ranger #4.....shorty, Osgiliath is under attack, there is a troop of Girl Guides there that won't leave until our forces there buy all of their cookies, they need reinforcements (or something to that effect)).

FYI the trilogy are some of my very favourite movies, and probably my favourite series of movies, and certainly the one I find the most emotionally powerful. Well short of the books, but still very good.


macfalk
Valinor


Nov 10 2012, 10:18am


Views: 635
Aragorn
IMO, Aragorn is the most stuck-up character of all of Tolkien's "noble heroes". A true king does not make fun of good people like Barliman and Gimli. Also, his "I am the heir and you better not forget it" attitude to everyone got tiresome very quickly.


The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Nov 10 2012, 10:18am)


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 10 2012, 5:51pm


Views: 585
Your opinion
directly contradicts that which Tolkien was trying to express about Aragorn, which is summed up with Elronds comment in UT Gladden Fields, something along the lines of nobility without pride, and altough I can only guess at the comments you are referring to, I believe you have grossly misrepresented their context. Sort of like your earlier comment about Beregond's exile to Ithilien. Making Aragorn out as stuck up is the same as when people say Boromir and Denethor are bad.

His claims as the heir is frequently the most misrepresented fact. If he was so pridefull of it he would have claimed Minas Tirith immediately instead of camping outside the gates.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 10 2012, 5:57pm)


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 6:28pm


Views: 527
I think what all this boils down to...
...is what you're personally looking for in art or storytelling. If you want an authentic slice of life, heavy drama and emotion is never going to please you. I personally want a separation between the mundane realities of life and the representational expressions of drama. I want stories to sum up feelings and convey them in symbolic ways, not to just take a piece of life and portray it as it really is. That's what I have my own life for. Sometimes that can be done well, but my favorite stories are never like that.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 10 2012, 6:51pm


Views: 544
LOTR
the book in no way resembles my life. I read your comments and then just as frequently others say changes need to be made so the audience can relate and to me the two points of view conflict.

I don't want to see everday life on screen or in the book when considering a story such as LOTR. That is why JRRT pretty much removed the mundane from all aspects of the story.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 6:57pm


Views: 554
RE: Aragorn and Faramir
If you find book-Aragorn more enjoyable, then who am I to tell you you're wrong? You're not wrong - I just don't understand what makes a relatively static character so interesting to you. I personally find the sheer number of "noble" characters in LOTR to be rather boring. That's it. Maybe I wouldn't feel as strongly if there weren't so many other characters this way. Flawed people are so much more interesting to me than perfect ones. It matters less to me whether Aragorn actually takes up the role of king than it is to see his struggle to do so. I think the main point of the "character journey" is that films are so self-contained, often much more so than literature. The LOTR novel has the advantage of so many other Tolkien works, and so Aragorn's other stories give his LOTR story context. But the films are really about one story. They don't have other complimentary works, so therefore we want to see all the facets of Aragorn's character within the time frame of the films. I think that's especially so for people who have never picked up a Tolkien book in their lives.

You see it as cliche - I see it as a necessary part of storytelling. Difference of opinion.

By the way, I think your example of how the reader's perception of Aragorn changes is still an example of a "journey" - just a different kind. It's ours rather than his, but it's still the same concept. If the filmmakers could have pulled that off in a similar way, it probably would have been fine. But to have Aragorn just tag along and then take up the throne is a little boring.

But when it comes to Faramir, I disagree - I think it increased the Ring's potency. To have him not tempted at all would have weakened the Ring because so many other characters - stronger ones even (Galadriel, Aragorn, Gandalf) - have been affected by it. They were all tempted and later rejected it; did those instances weaken the Ring? I don't think they did. This is just another one of them. In fact I think it even further established the fundamental difference between Faramir and Boromir. Both were tempted, but the stronger brother was able to overcome that temptation.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 7:03pm


Views: 526
Re: Time
Well, Gandalf did have a horse, which is surely much faster than Hobbits slowly walking. Plus he knew where he was going, and the Hobbits were walking through roadless territory they'd never seen before. Plus, as Philippa Boyens pointed out in the commentary, we don't know everywhere the hobbits went; the film's just cut around those moments. Keep in mind that they didn't change the map. It's similar to how they cut from a day scene to a night scene. The sun went down, but we don't need to see everything that happened during that time if it's irrelevant to the story.


Magpie
Immortal


Nov 10 2012, 7:09pm


Views: 527
LOTR in no way resembles your life?
I'm not following this entire conversation, more just sampling comments here and there. So perhaps I'm missing an important part.

Quote
LOTR the book in no way resembles my life..
But that statement caught my eye. And I'm not challenging it as much as pondering it.

I think LOTR resembles my life a lot. And I've heard other people say similar things. It's just the setting for the story is not like my life. Which is why it's a little easier for me to take in. If the same issues were being addressed in a story set very close to my life, I probably couldn't bear reading it.

But LOTR is infused with stuff that seems so pertinent to my life experiences that it's remarkable. The way characters indulge in a little humor when things look bleak. The way characters find the will to keep going when they are exhausted and successful results seem improbable. The way things can seem to have gone the way you hoped but not everything is 'fine' in the end. The way when one has made a stupid blunder it seems to have an unexpected result that isn't all bad. The way one can do something almost shameful but then rise up from that to do a good thing. They way moments of beauty and friendship come to characters and then fall behind as time and life keeps them on the running stream. The way friendship and fellowship keeps a character going when they can't take one more step on their own.

That resembles my life. :-)

LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 7:31pm


Views: 526
I'm sure MANY would disagree that he removed the mundane parts
I've heard many people complain they couldn't get through parts of FOTR because there's so much walking through the woods with endless descriptions of nature. Not that I agree, but it's a common complaint out there.

I wasn't necessarily talking about specific relation to an audience member's own life. You brought up that it's more realistic to not have every character go through a journey, and I replied that I like storytelling to give summations of emotional ideas through its characters, not to present them as they would literally act in a given time frame in the real world. Basically I think an author should use his characters to convey certain ideas and emotions rather than have them exist to move the plot forward just because it seems more realistic. I'm talking specifically about characters we focus on, not Rohirrim Guard #4.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 10 2012, 8:04pm


Views: 510
Magpie
the comment was a ridiculous statement, a joke, tounge in cheek if you like. I like the departure from my life in stories and it was being inferred that perhaps this was otherwise.

As far as removing the mundane is involved this refered to the mundane of everyday life, the things we need to do in our everyday, the main exception to this in the writing are meals and sleep. I have seen comments on different forums about toilet breaks etc and was even horrified at a recent suggestion that we may see Gandalf returning from a toilet break from behind a tree in the upcoming movies. This strikes me as a modern concept of including such things in the story, think of how many classic tales you would read about this, none I can think of.


dreamflower
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 8:29pm


Views: 495
But he did not have Shadowfax when he left the Shire
Even with the book-verse, it only took the hobbits a week to get to Bree, and that was including a stay with Tom Bombadil and a delay with the barrow-wights. In the movies it is strongly implied that there is only a day between their crossing the Brandywine and arriving in Bree.

It took Gandalf twenty days to reach Orthanc; it might not have taken quite so long in the movie-verse, but it still would have taken him longer to just get there than it would have taken the hobbits to get to Bree--and I do not believe that PJ & Co. left a long enough gap to account for it--especially excluding old Tom and the barrow-wights. Even if Gandalf had not been delayed by his imprisonment by Sauron, he COULD NOT have reached Bree before Frodo and Sam did.

It's a mistake in continuity is all. It doesn't mean that it's a horrible movie or that I hate it for this reason. But it is still a mistake, and it was made because PJ wanted to get Frodo and Sam out of the Shire quickly, rather than take the time from Gandalf's proof of the Ring's identity in April to Frodo's birthday in September. So he has Gandalf rush them off and tell them to meet him in Bree (which made sense in the book--he had the time for that in the book if he had not been captured)-even though there was no way he could have done it in the movie. (On Shadowfax he did manage the return journey in only twelve days. But without Shadowfax, on an ordinary horse, he never could have done it.)


(This post was edited by dreamflower on Nov 10 2012, 8:32pm)


Magpie
Immortal


Nov 10 2012, 8:48pm


Views: 488
aha!
subtle humor goess over my head in real life. On the web, I have no chance at all.

Do you know who Emily Litella is? :-)

"Never mind."

LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Bombadil
Half-elven


Nov 10 2012, 8:57pm


Views: 538
Magpie after Moving to the Shire in my Mind's Eye
Over Christmas 1967...much that has transpired in
The last 45 years...has colored Bomby's
Life.
When my Goldberry died..She passed into.. The West.

When my Father died
he also sailed..

It isn't that Bomby is a Nutjob?..
it's that Charlie
has hope..

the way Tolkien expressed it
the Best...
over 70 years ago.


(This post was edited by Bombadil on Nov 10 2012, 8:59pm)


Magpie
Immortal


Nov 10 2012, 9:54pm


Views: 520
When a friend I made in Tolkien died unexpectedly...
...it hit me really hard. Another friend in Tolkien put it like this: "Some hurts are too deep for this world to heal. They have to be given to others to do so." Of course, he was putting it in the context of Frodo. That was another loss that had hit me hard and his words resonated with.

When my sister-in-law died, I spoke at her service and I used those same words, "Some hurts are too deep for this world. They have to be given to others to do so." And I spoke them to my sister when my mother died.

It's not so much that Tolkien's words are something that eases the pain of life. It just makes it somehow worthy. It puts pain into a perspective we can accept and even honor. It's part of life. Joy does not exist without pain. And pain is what informs us about what is important. When we feel grief at the loss of something, it is a beacon that *that* was important.

It's why this passage is the one that is most meaningful of anything that Tolkien wrote:
“And he sang to them, now in the Elven tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.”

It is no accident that these words/phrases were paired throughout:
wounded -- sweet
joy -- swords
pain -- delight
tears -- wine

Tolkien gets... and so do us all who have lived a full life... that those two sides are wedded together.
For such is the way of it: to find and lose, as it seems to those whose boat is on the running stream. But I count you blessed, Bombadil, husband of Goldberry: for your loss you suffer of your own free will, and you might have chosen otherwise.
I read that (altered for you, of course) that you suffered of your own free will because you chose to love her. You could have protected yourself against loss by never allowing joy into your life. You chose love.

LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 10 2012, 11:42pm


Views: 485
Honestly I don't think it's something most people even notice
Only a book fan who knows the distances on the map would notice it. All your information makes sense...I just don't think most people even think twice about it. I never did before you mentioned it, which is why I questioned it in the first place.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Nov 11 2012, 1:28am


Views: 465
Magpie! ...Goldberry will be waiting to Meet you..
You understand Bomby better
than I do.


Magpie
Immortal


Nov 11 2012, 1:37am


Views: 476
for you...
the grief is still too near.

Some distance is need to get philosophical. Or maybe more experience. I have had a lot of death in my life and those near to me the last 5 years or so.

LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Nov 11 2012, 2:06am


Views: 461
A wonderful post
Moved me to tears, I have to admit (fruity ones, which an earthy finish). Smile

The value you find in Tolkien's words, and stories, dovetail almost exactly with mine. Particularly in the past three years, during which I have lost two people that were very dear to me.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Nov 11 2012, 2:06am)


Elutherian
Rohan


Nov 11 2012, 3:34am


Views: 495
I only remember Gimli burping once...
In TTT. The majority of the humor was based on his rivalry with Legolas. This may not be entirely in line with the books, but its hardly "lowest common denominator humor."
The Grey Pilgrim, they once called me. Three hundred lives of men I walked this earth, and now I have no time...


dreamflower
Lorien

Nov 11 2012, 5:05am


Views: 550
Probably not. But I did.
In fact, it's one of the few mistakes I noticed early on. I really doubt if I'm the only person in the world who did a double-take about it.

Noticing or not noticing isn't the point. There are some things I didn't notice until someone else pointed them out to me. But even if nobody else notices, it's still there, it's still a mistake that could have been avoided with a little thought.

It doesn't ruin the entire movie, it's not a huge deal--not like some of the differences in characterizations, for example, that upset a good many people. I just pointed it out as one of the things that occasionally annoys me.

But it's nothing that Howard Shore's music can't make up for. Smile


macfalk
Valinor


Nov 11 2012, 12:26pm


Views: 531
Exactly
I know what Tolkien was trying to accomplish with his "noble" heroes, but the result is very stale. I find book-Aragorn about as interesting as a piece of paper.

I'm tired of being spoonfed by snarky purists with the attitude of "You Just Don't Understand"


The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Nov 11 2012, 5:43pm


Views: 474
I understand your opinion
One can understand Tolkien's intent, and still not enjoy the result. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion, and should not be dismissed.

I think some people are put off, however, by the: "How can people like this bland stuff?" comments, which can come across as insulting.

I haven't heard you make such statements, but others here who have strong negative opinions on Tolkien's characters have.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 11 2012, 6:47pm


Views: 607
You can't be talking about me surely
as I noted earlier I am certainly no purist or I wouldn't enjoy the movies to the extent I do, and consider some of the changes Sir PJ made essential to a successful movie series. I find it disturbing that it is the so called purists who tend not to get personal when discussing Tolkien but the same courtesy is rarely extended from others.

How interesting you find Aragorn was not an issue I was commenting on, what I did comment on was the fact that you referred to him as stuck up and the fact that Tolkien wrote otherwise, which I think is very relevant to answering the question in the OP. For this I take it I am labellled a snarky purist, well done to you.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 11 2012, 6:53pm)


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 11 2012, 6:57pm


Views: 636
Nobody here used those words
Trying to understand why these characters are beloved ("I just don't understand what makes a relatively static character so interesting to you") and berating someone for liking them are two very different things. No one in in this thread has done the latter. We're all making our arguments in a civil manner, and there's no reason to feel insulted. Furthermore, these aren't "strong negative opinions" against Tolkien's characters - I think everyone here obviously loves Tolkien's work; we just disagree on some of the decisions he made, which is healthy to do. I, personally, am just trying to justify some of the changes made in the movies, which I happen to think are perfectly valid.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Nov 11 2012, 7:42pm


Views: 616
starless
if yours was a reply to my last post, just look back a couple more posts in the thread, the words snarky purist are used by another, I am assuming this is at least in part directed at myself.

I find Aragorn interesting because of who he is, I do not see the need for someone to change during the course of a story for them to be interesting. I am not saying change doesn't add to the interest of a character, but I am also saying it is not always necessary. If it is seen as always necessary that is what I find predictable as an method of storytelling.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Nov 11 2012, 8:19pm


Views: 616
I'm not insulted at all
Though I can see why the following statement does come across as a judgment about people's taste:

Quote
I just don't understand what makes a relatively static character so interesting to you
It's subtle, and I don't think you mean to be insulting. But for people who have strong reasons for enjoying Tolkien's varying modes of characterization, it can seem like a judgment.


macfalk
Valinor


Nov 11 2012, 9:39pm


Views: 611
I wasn't calling you it specifically
In fact, the post was not even directed towards you, I replied to another poster.


The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 12 2012, 2:13am


Views: 575
Sorry, I did not mean to come across that way
I probably should have worded that differently.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Nov 12 2012, 2:14am


Views: 567
No worries - it didn't bother me at all! {NT}
 


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 12 2012, 2:19am


Views: 566
Re: change
Ahhh, ok, I understand your point, and it's a very valid one. In fact, I even agree to some extent. Maybe it comes across as slightly formulaic with these adaptations because, instead of changing characters completely, the writers attempted to insert roadblocks as a way of earning the character traits from the book. That almost always involved reversals. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I like to see more than a dominant character trait. For example, Gollum doesn't really change as a character throughout the events of LOTR, but there are so many sides to him that it keeps things fresh.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Nov 12 2012, 3:05am


Views: 578
But too many character arcs in an ensemble
If often a recipe for story-telling disaster.

Tolkien was right to center the character journeys on the hobbits. It makes for a much more coherent story. The rest of the characters are merely passing through their story.


starlesswinter
Lorien

Nov 12 2012, 3:28am


Views: 568
True, but...
at least in the movies, TTT and ROTK become just as much Aragorn's story as Frodo's. In the book there is a bit more going on as far as the people Aragorn interacts with or travels with, but in the films they zoom in on his character for the "other half" of the story. I'm pretty sure movie-only audiences would identify him as the second most important character next to Frodo. They cut away to him so often that it would almost be strange not to have some sort of character journey associated with him. But no, not every character needs or should have an arc. Arcs don't even need to be resolved to be poignant - I think it's just more interesting to see them struggling and working toward something.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Nov 12 2012, 3:59am


Views: 865
Agreed
Though I do think book Aragorn certainly struggled and worked toward something. Wink